290 likes | 422 Views
Data collection in routine herbal practice - A CPP pilot project. Dr Saul Berkovitz on behalf of CPP members. Introduction / Rationale Methods Results Discussion Conclusions. CPP data collection. Introduction. Little involvement of herbalists in clinical research
E N D
Data collection in routine herbal practice - A CPP pilot project Dr Saul Berkovitz on behalf of CPP members
Introduction / Rationale Methods Results Discussion Conclusions CPP data collection
Introduction • Little involvement of herbalists in clinical research • What active contribution can we make as an organisation?
Introduction • Most herbalists work in isolation • Little or no systematic data collection or audit
Introduction • Small group of interested herbalists convened – summer 2008 • Pilot project - Systematic data collection in routine practice
Methods • Minimal data collection • Data collection and entry by practitioners • Every consecutive patient • One month (Nov 2008) • Excel spreadsheet
Methods • Patient data anonymous • Age • Sex • New or follow-up • Conditions (up to three) relevant to consultation • Comment
Methods • Confirmation obtained from UCLH Ethics Committee that patient informed consent / ethics approval not required due to absence of patient-identifiable data
Results • Results collated by SB by merging spreadsheets • Descriptive data only • No outcomes in this phase I project
Results • 17 herbalists agreed to participate • One e-mail address incorrect • 14 /16 herbalists returned data (88%) • 2 herbalists shared one spreadsheet and were counted as one
Results: Number of patients • Number of patients = 383 • 3 herbalists (21%) contributed 234 patients (61%) • Mean number of patients per herbalist = 29 • Median = 14 • Range = 2 to 86, SD 45.5
Results: Age and Sex Sex: 126 M, 257 F (M:F ratio 0.49) Age: • Mean 51.5 / Median 54 (range 9m-92y, SD 19.3) • M - Mean 52.2 / Med 57.5 (9m –82y) • F - Mean 51.2 / Med 53 (3-92)
Results: N / FU ratio • 90 new appts, 293 FU • Mean N / FU ratio = 0.31 • Median = 0.25 • Range 0-0.75
Results: Conditions seen • Number of different conditions seen = 360 (383 patients) • 1 condition = 79 pts • 2 conditions = 137 pts • 3 conditions = 166 pts • Mean number per patient = 2.2
Feedback • 90 new appts, 293 FU • Mean N / FU ratio = 0.31 • Median = 0.25 • Range 0-0.75
Conclusions • Data collection in routine herbal practice appears feasible over a one-month period • Direct electronic data entry by herbalists is feasible • The results are interesting
Usefulness of data • Individual herbalists • Activity • Reflective practice (self-critical approach) • Clinical audit, activity review (CPD) • Outcomes • What are my results in practice?
Usefulness of data • Herbal profession • Professional identity / shared purpose • A ‘map of herbal practice’ • what do we treat? • Patients, conditions (specialisation) • To inform possible research • Routine monitoring of outcomes (PROM’s) • What are our results?
Next steps • Phase II • similar methodology • more CPP members involved • Should we also approach NIMH? • Phase III • longitudinal data collection • including outcomes?